Journal of Travel Research

Expectation, Motivation, and Attitude: 49(3) 282­–296

© 2010 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission:
A Tourist Behavioral Model sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0047287509349266
http://jtr.sagepub.com

Cathy H. C. Hsu,1 Liping A. Cai,2,3 and Mimi Li1

Abstract
This study focuses on the previsit stage of tourists by modeling the behavioral process incorporating expectation, motivation,
and attitude in the context of Chinese outbound travelers. An expectation, motivation, and attitude (EMA) model is proposed
based on a comprehensive literature review. An instrument is developed based on previous tourism and marketing studies as
well as focus groups to measure the variables in the EMA model. Data are collected from 1,514 Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou
residents. Results of the study confirm the proposed relations that expectation of visiting an outbound destination has a
direct effect on motivation to visit the destination; motivation has a direct effect on attitude toward visiting the destination;
expectation of visiting the outbound destination has a direct effect on attitude toward visiting the destination; and motivation
has a mediating effect on the relationship between expectation and attitude. Practical and theoretical contributions are
discussed, with future research suggested.

Keywords
expectation, motivation, attitude, Chinese tourists, behavioral model

Introduction travel motivation measurements (Crompton 1979; Dann 1981;

Previous studies on travel behavior indicated that tourists’
behavior is a continuous process that includes varied yet
intercorrelated stages (Mill and Morrison 2002). Travel moti-
vation has always been considered as the essential part of this
dynamic process, which has drawn great attention from tour-
ism academia since the 1960s, with substantial progress being
achieved. Several theories or models have been developed
to guide the empirical study of travel motivation, such as
the push–pull (Dann 1977), allocentric–psychocentric (Plog
1974), escape-seeking (Dunn Ross and Iso-Ahola 1991),
and travel career ladder (Pearce 1988; Pearce and Lee
2005) models. Despite the achievement in understanding
travel motivation, there is no widely agreed-on theoretical
or conceptual framework (WTO 1999) because of the wide
range of human needs, methodological difficulties (French,
Craig-Smith, and Collier 1995), and culture differences
(Kim and Prideaux 2005; Pearce and Lee 2005; Smith 1995).
This lack of agreement calls for more investigations into
tourists’ travel motivation.
A brief review of travel motivation research (Table 1)
published in the three major tourism journals—Annals of
Tourism Research, Tourism Management, and Journal of
Travel Research—revealed that existing studies have cov-
ered a wide range of the spectrum, including the sociology of
travel motivation as a stimulator of actual behavior (Dann
1977; Mansfeld 1992); the development or empirical test of
Fodness 1994; Ryan and Glendon 1998); travel motivation of
different niche markets (Clift and Forrest 1999; Dunn Ross
and Iso-Ahola 1991; Hsu, Cai, and Wong 2007; Maoz 2007;
Qu and Ping 1999; Rittichainuwat 2008); differences in moti-
vation among tourists with varied nationality and cultural
backgrounds (Kim and Prideaux 2005; Maoz 2007), number
of visits (Lau and McKercher 2004), destinations and origins
(Kozak 2002), sociodemographic characteristics (Jang and
Wu 2006; Fleischer and Pizam 2002), or environmental atti-
tude (Luo and Deng 2008). Motivation was also found to be
extensively used as a means to divide the tourist market into
smaller but meaningful segments (Beh and Bruyere 2007;
Chang, Wall, and Chu 2006; Formica and Uysal 1998; Lieux,
Weaver, and McCleary 1994; Park and Yoon 2009; Sirakaya,
Uysal, and Yoshioka 2003).
Despite the fact that motivation is a crucial part of the
travel consumer behavior, studies on the relationships between
motivation and other behavioral constructs are surprisingly
rare. One of the few exceptions was made by Yoon and Uysal
1
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, P. R. China
2
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
3
South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, P. R. China
Corresponding Author:
Cathy H. C. Hsu, School of Hotel and Tourism Management, The Hong
Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, P. R. China
Email: hmhsu@polyu.edu.hk
Hsu et al. 283

Table 1. A Brief Summary of Studies on Travel Motivation

Authors Study

Dann 1977 A sociological study of travel motivation, with a focus on the push dimension of motivation
Crompton 1979 The motivation for pleasure vacation. Seven motivation factors were identified through interviews.
Dann 1981 Based on a literature review on travel motivation, seven approaches of motivation study were identified. The
utilization of different terminologies was also discussed.
Dunn Ross and Iso- Motivation of sightseeing tourists in relation to their satisfaction
Ahola 1991
Mansfeld 1992 The role of motivation in travel behavior and its complex nature
Paul 1992 Travel motivation of Canadian ecotourists
Parrinello 1993 Relationship between anticipation and motivation in postindustrial societies in the context of Western Europe
Fodness 1994 A measurement scale was developed for leisure travel with 20 items.
Lieux, Weaver, and Benefit segmentation of senior tourists from the United States
McCleary 1994
Gnoth 1997 Development of a theoretical model on motivation and expectation formation
Formica and Uysal 1998 Benefit segmentation of visitors to a cultural-historical event in Italy
Ryan and Glendon 1998 The Leisure Motivation Scale was applied to tourism with British holidaymakers. An abbreviated version of
holiday motivation scale with 14 items was developed.
Waller and Lea 1998 Relationship between authenticity seeking and enjoyment. The knowledge dimension of motivation was found
to mediate this relationship.
Clift and Forrest 1999 Travel motivation of gay men in relation to the type of destinations they preferred in the context of the
United Kingdom
Qu and Ping 1999 Motivation of cruise selection in the context of Hong Kong
Goossens 2000 The role of emotional component of travel motivation in stimulating actual travel behavior
Fleischer and Pizam Relationship between motivation and Israeli senior travelers’ income and health
2002
Kozak 2002 Differences of motivation among tourists visiting different destinations and tourists from different countries
visiting same destination with respondents from the United Kingdom and Germany
Sirakaya, Uysal, and Benefit segmentation of Japanese tourists to Turkey
Yoshioka 2003
Lau and McKercher Differences of travel motivation between first-time and repeat visitors to Hong Kong
2004
Kim and Prideaux 2005 A cross-cultural analysis on travel motivation to South Korea among five national tourist groups
Pearce and Lee 2005 Further development of the Travel Career Ladder by introducing Travel Career Pattern (TCP). The
relationship between previous experience and motivation was explored by TCP.
Yoon and Uysal 2005 Causal relationship between push–pull motivations, satisfaction, and destination loyalty. Pull factors were
found to negatively influence satisfaction.
Jang and Wu 2006 Influences of sociodemographic factors, economic status, health status, and positive and negative affects on
travel motivation among Taiwanese seniors
Chang, Wall, and Chu Benefit segmentation using the novelty seeking scale in the context of Taiwanese tourists to aboriginal
2006 attractions
Nicolau and Mas 2006 Influences of travel distance and price on destination selection, with travel motivation as a moderator in the
context of Spain
Poria, Reichel, and Biran Relationship between perception of heritage as it is related to the tourists’ own heritage and motivation
2006 explored before the trip
Snerpenger et al. 2006 Tourists and recreationers were compared using Iso-Ahola’s motivation theory. The relationship between
motivation and previous vacations was investigated.
Swanson and Horridge Causal relationship between souvenir shopping and four motivational factors in the context of Southwestern
2006 United States
Beh and Bruyere 2007 Benefit segmentation in the context of Kenya
Hsu, Cai, and Wong, A theoretical model of senior travel motivation in the context of China
2007
Maoz 2007 Travel motivation of Israeli backpackers, investigated in relation to national and cultural characteristics
Luo and Deng 2008 Relationship between environmental attitude and nature-based tourism motivation
Rittichainuwat 2008 Travel motivation to a tourism destination, using the disaster-hit beach resort in Phuket as an example.
Comparisons were made between domestic and inbound tourists, and between tourists of different ages
and genders.
Park and Yoon 2009 Benefit segmentation of rural tourism in the context of South Korea
284 Journal of Travel Research 49(3)
(2005). Building on theories in satisfaction, they empiri-
cally tested the relationships among motivation, satisfaction,
and loyalty using data collected by a self-administrated
questionnaire in Northern Cyprus. Using structural equation
modeling, the study explored the linkage between motiva-
tional factors and satisfaction, as well as destination loyalty.
Results revealed that satisfaction is influenced by pull moti-
vational factors, while destination loyalty is influenced by
the push dimension of motivation.
The association between motivation and satisfaction
was also investigated by Dunn Ross and Iso-Ahola (1991)
who compared the motivation and satisfaction dimensions
with guided day tourists. Similarities between these dimen-
sions were identified, and these constructs lead to a very
high overall satisfaction. Besides satisfaction, other con-
structs being investigated include anticipation (Parrinello
1993), attitude (Lam and Hsu 2006), perception (Poria,
Reichel, and Biran 2006), and previous experience (Pearce
1988; Pearce and Caltabiano 1983; Pearce and Lee 2005).
At least two research gaps could be detected from Table 1
as well as the existing literature. Theoretically, most previ-
ous studies focused on motivation per se while ignoring the
formation of motivation (Gnoth 1997) and its subsequent
consequences in the dynamic course of behavior. Moreover,
motivation was examined in relation to a single behavioral
construct, either previsit or postvisit, while the mechanism
of how motivation stimulates actual behavior remains unex-
plored. Methodologically, existing studies, with very few
exceptions, used data collected after the actual visit. This
method requires the respondents to recall underlying reasons
of their visit, from which bias is expected.
The current study was therefore carried out to address the
two gaps by investigating the interrelationships among exp­
ectation, motivation, and attitude, using data collected from
potential Chinese outbound tourists. The sudden rise of the
outbound Chinese tourists is a phenomenon that has caught
many non-Asian destinations by surprise. The global market-
place of tourism is and will continue to witness the growing
demand from Chinese consumers. However, the world is not
yet prepared for it. Ideological, psychological, social, and
cultural barriers remain on the part of hosting communities
to accept and embrace the Chinese tourists, albeit their gov-
ernments and businesses are eager to roll out the welcome
mats. A review of existing studies on Chinese outbound tour-
ism from 20 top-ranked tourism and hospitality journals
published outside of China revealed that only 30 academic
papers were published as of 2006 (Cai, Li, and Knuston
2007). To the extent that those studies are valuable in gaining
an understanding of the Chinese outbound market in general
and the behavioral characteristics of tourists to particular
destinations, the knowledge is severely limited to the desc­
ription of the phenomena. The nature of Chinese outbound
tourism as rooted in the context of Chinese culture, as well as
the interrelationships among behavioral constructs, remains
unexplored. Thus, the potential Chinese outbound market
was used as the study context.
Theoretical Foundations
Motivation and Expectation
Research into consumer motivation could be divided into
two categories (Campbell et al. 1970): the process models,
which include theories that predict which behaviors will be
emitted when the organism is aroused, and content models,
which include various conceptualizations of needs. The pro-
cess models have demonstrated moderate and rather consistent
predictive power as compared to the content models, and
therefore are more favorable (Mayes 1978).
One of the most fundamental questions to be answered
by process models is the final choice. As such, many moti-
vational studies describe what Heckhausen (1989) called
“situation–person interactions” and follow a deliberate
decision-making process to explain choice among goals and
action alternatives (Crompton 1979; Gnoth 1997). An indi-
vidual is stimulated by a given (or pursued) situation with the
expected desirable or undesirable incentives that attach to the
consequences arising from his or her actions. In other words,
a person chooses a certain behavior for its expected results.
From this perspective, the motivational process represents a
prerequisite step to action. It can be viewed as a cognitive
elaboration with emotional components (Heckhausen 1989).
The cognitive elaboration can lead to an increasing urge to
conclude the motivational process.
One of the most relevant theoretical references of pro-
cess models is the expectancy model formulated by Vroom
(1964). In the model, motivation represents psychological
needs to pursuit a goal state (Vroom 1964). To explain the
underlying mechanisms for this pursuit, two conditions are
required as elaborated by Heckhausen (1989). First, it must
be possible to anticipate the occurrence of the goal state—
there must be an expectation. Second, the goal state must
have some intrinsic value or attractiveness (valence) for the
subject in order to serve as a motive. Therefore, motivation
can be conceptualized as the product of expectancy and
valence.
The concept of expectancy refers to the degree of belief
that an act will be followed by some consequences (Feather
1990). Expectations are the variations of beliefs. The dis-
tinctive characteristic of the expectancy-value theory is the
attempt to relate action to the perceived attractiveness or
aversiveness of expected consequences. What a person does
in a situation is assumed to relate to the expectation that the
person holds and to the subjective value of the outcomes
that may occur following the action (Feather 1982). In other
words, an individual’s motivation to perform a certain
Hsu et al. 285
activity is a function of the expectation that he or she will
be able to perform the activity and obtain the desired out-
comes, and the personal value of all outcomes associated
with that activity. Therefore, one can influence motivation
by manipulating cues that define an individual’s expectation
concerning the consequences of his or her action and/or the
incentive value of the consequences produced by the action.
Bandura (1977) examined expectation by dividing it
into efficacy expectation and outcome expectation. An effi-
cacy expectation is “the conviction that one can successfully
execute the behavior required to produce the outcomes”
(Bandura 1977, p. 193), while an outcome expectation is “a
person’s estimate that a given behavior will lead to certain
outcomes” (p. 193). Bandura pointed out that a person can
believe that a particular action will lead to some defined out-
come but may also doubt that he or she can perform the
action successfully. Thus, one can perceive the likely conse-
quences of an action without being able to execute the action.
The current study focused on the outcome expectation, and
adopted Feather’s (1982) proposition that motivation is a
function of expectation.
Motivation and Attitude
Research on attitude has occupied a major share of attention
in social psychology for several decades as indicated by the
large volume of studies published. Insomuch as an important
psychological construct in tourist behavior, Gnoth (1997)
pointed out that in understanding tourist motivation, attitude
has to be captured and categorized within a complete and
multidimensional system that reflects its structural diversity
regarding expectations and experiences of the attitude object.
Attitude should also be presented within a theory permit-
ting a straightforward application for tourism planning and
management of resources and experiences. To put it simply,
attitude is one of the critical, if not the most critical, topics of
discussion in the development of a model for tourist motiva-
tion and behavior (Gnoth 1997).
Attitude is defined by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) as “a
learned predisposition to respond in a consistently favorable
or unfavorable manner with respect to a given object” (p. 10).
The theory of planned behavior (TPB) developed by Fishbein
and Ajzen (1975) identified conditions necessary to arouse or
modify an attitude, and posited that such conditions would
vary in accordance with the motivational basis of the atti-
tude. One basic condition for the arousal of an existing
attitude is the activation of an individual’s relevant need
states. A causal relationship was not explicitly proposed in
Fishbein and Ajzen’s work. However, their theory suggested
that motivation precedes attitude, and the former may influ-
ence the latter. Building on previous studies on motivation
and attitude, Gnoth (1997) proposed a conceptual framework
to delineate the relationship between motivation and attitude.
According to Gnoth, a tourist’s attitude toward an object is
determined by both his or her felt needs and value system.
Very few studies have investigated the relationship bet­
ween travel motivation and attitude (e.g., Lam and Hsu 2004,
2006; Ragheb and Tate 1993), and the exact nature of the
relationship remains unclear, as the results reported by previ-
ous studies have been inconclusive or even contradictory.
Incorporating motivation factors, Lam and Hsu (2004, 2006)
conducted two empirical studies with 353 mainland Chinese
(2004) and 480 Taiwanese (2006) tourists to predict travel
behavior and intention of destination selection. Based on the
TPB, Lam and Hsu postulated that tourists’ behavior belief
of both push and pull motivational factors is a determinant of
their affective dimension of attitude toward visiting Hong
Kong.
Contrary to Lam and Hsu’s studies, Ragheb and Tate
(1993) empirically tested a model that posited that leisure
attitudes were sources of leisure motivation based on an
empirical study with 372 students in the southeastern United
States. More specifically, Ragheb and Tate explored the psy-
chodynamic functions of both the cognitive and affective
dimensions of attitude in motivating individuals to behave.
There was no solid theoretical foundation for Ragheb and
Tate’s (1993) study, and they grounded their argument on
“theory in social psychology” (p. 63), such as Hollander
(1971) and Lindgren (1969), which “speculated that attitudes
can serve as sources of motivation for the way in which
people interact with their environment” (Ragheb and Tate
1993, p. 64). They also stated that “Katz (1960) was res­
ponsible for the notion that attitudes have psychodynamic
functions motivating individuals to behave in positive ways”
(Ragheb and Tate 1993, p. 63). These three citations appeared
again when Ragheb and Tate concluded that their empirical
model “reflected the importance of the psychodynamic effect
of attitude on motivation” (p. 68).
However, a brief review of the studies by Hollander
(1971), Lindgren (1969), and Katz (1960) revealed that only
Lindgren made a statement that “another way to look at psy-
chological needs is to think of them as motives rooted in
systems or complexes of attitudes or values” (Lindgren
1969, p. 80). Hollander (1971), on the other hand, argued
that “attitudes have properties which define what is expected
and what is desired” (p. 114) and attitudes can therefore
be considered as motivational–perceptual states that direct
action. Katz (1960) presented that motivation contributes to
the understanding of the formation and change of attitude.
Both Hollander (1971) and Katz (1960) agreed that the
arousal and modification of an individual’s attitude are sub-
ject to the change of motivational basis. Thus, the literature
revealed a stronger support for the argument that attitude
toward an act is determined by an individual’s motivation to
perform the act.
Expectation and Attitude
Another condition set forth by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) in
arousing an individual’s attitude is the perception of the
286 Journal of Travel Research 49(3)
appropriate cues associated with the content of the attitude. In
other words, attitude toward an object is a function of the
belief about the object and the implicit evaluative responses
associated with the belief. The evaluation arises spontane-
ously and inevitably as people form their belief about the
object (Ajzen and Fishbein 2000). To the extent that expecta-
tion is a variation of belief in a specific context, attitude toward
a specific object can be determined by one’s expectation of the
object. This proposition is aligned with the argument pre-
sented by Ajzen and Fishbein that an individual’s attitude set
him or her to respond through the perceptual quality of select-
ing, categorizing, and interpreting experience in line with
expectation. It is also in agreement with a recent expectancy-
value model proposed by Ajzen (2001), which suggested that
a person’s overall attitude toward an object can be determined
by the subjective value of the object’s attributes in interaction
with the strength of the association between the object and the
attributes. Extant literature by Higgins (1996) and Olson,
Roese, and Zanna (1996) also supported expectation as a
proxy of belief in attitudinal studies.
Investigations of the relationship between expectation
and attitude are often incorporated in studies of service qual-
ity and consumer satisfaction. In many of these studies,
customer attitude corresponds to a global evaluation of the
product or service (Bolton and Drew 1991; Holbrook and
Corfman 1985; Olshavsky 1985), while customer satisfaction
refers to a customer’s evaluation of a specific transaction.
Therefore, Oliver (1981) argued that satisfaction is an input
to attitude. When customer satisfaction is modeled as a func-
tion of disconfirmation arising from discrepancies between
prior expectation and actual performance, which is typically
the case in consumer satisfaction studies (Spreng, MacKenzie,
and Olshavsky 1996), expectation, as a critical antecedent of
satisfaction, becomes a determinant of attitude.
The Conceptual Model
An important work to date in linking motivation, expecta-
tion, and attitude in tourism research is the theoretical study
by Gnoth (1997). Based on an extensive review of the lit-
erature, Gnoth proposed a conceptual model of tourism
motivation and expectation formation. Starting from moti­
ves that cause individuals to search the environment for objects
that satisfy them, their felt needs and value system determine
their attitudes and expectations. In Gnoth’s model, expecta-
tions are considered structurally similar to attitudes, although
they appear distinctively in the model with the attitudes pre-
ceding expectations. The model however also specifies a
separate concept of attitude in singular form. This singular-
form concept is placed after expectations and follows the
event, which is defined as the perception of experiences. It
seems the singular-form attitude is tantamount to satisfaction
or dissatisfaction, as it loops back directly to feed into the
plural-form attitudes in the model. The relationships concep-
tualized in the model have yet to be empirically tested.
Motivation
H2
H1
H4
Expectation Attitude
H3
Figure 1. The conceptual model
The current study accepts the basic tenet of Gnoth’s (1997)
argument in that the three concepts of motivation, expecta-
tion, and attitude are interrelated and should be examined
holistically, but departs from it in the sequential directions of
their relationship. The departure is warranted by and based on
the original theories examined above. The conceptual model
of the current study is illustrated in Figure 1. The model was
empirically tested with four hypotheses as follows.
1. Tourists’ expectation of visiting an outbound des-
tination has a direct effect on their motivation to
visit the destination.
2. Tourists’ motivation has a direct effect on their
attitude toward visiting the destination.
3. Tourists’ expectation of visiting an outbound des-
tination has a direct effect on their attitude toward
visiting the destination.
4. Motivation has a mediating effect on the relation-
ship between expectation and attitude.
Method
Data used in this study were collected from a consumer
survey conducted in three major cities of Beijing, Shanghai,
and Guangzhou in mainland China with Hong Kong as the
target destination. These three cities were selected for their
trend-setting status in lifestyles and are known for higher
propensities to travel. Hong Kong was selected because it
was one of the first regions to accept Chinese outbound
tourists, and after more than 20 years’ development, Hong
Kong has become a mature outbound destination for Chinese
mainlanders. A group of trained interviewers were stationed
at airport terminals, train stations, shopping malls, and out-
side of travel agencies. Potential respondents were invited to
participate. After explaining the purpose of the study, partici-
pants were asked to fill out the questionnaire on-site. As a
result, 1,514 completed questionnaires were collected.
The measurement of motivation was developed based
on focus group interviews and literature review. Five focus
Hsu et al. 287

Table 2. Respondents’ Profile

Characteristics % Characteristics %

Age Gender
<18 8.1    Male 49.8
19-29 73.2    Female 49.5
30-39 10.2 Occupation
40-49 4.4    Businessman 6.2
50-59 2.6    Civil servant 3.2
>60 0.9   Teacher 3.1
Education    Clerk or white-collar worker 33.8
Primary school or below 0.3    Blue-collar work 3.3
Middle school 3.9    Retired 1.4
High school or vocational high school 27.6    Unemployed 4.9
2- to 3-year college 27.3    Other 43.2
4-year university 35.1 Previous visit to Hong Kong
Postgraduate or above 5.3   Yes 13.1
   No 86.6

groups were carried out in Guangzhou and Beijing to iden-
tify participants’ motivation to visit and expectation of
visiting Hong Kong. Each group consisted of six to nine
participants and lasted for an average of 45 minutes. Partici-
pants were evenly distributed in terms of gender. Half of
them were between 30 and 39 years old and three-fourths of
them were married. Participants were well educated, with
78% of them having a college degree or above. More than
one-quarter of the participants had visited Hong Kong
before, with 70% of them being Guangzhou residents
because of the geographical proximity. Focus group discus-
sions were voice recorded, with notes on key issues taken.
Content analysis was adopted to identify motivational
themes. Twenty-seven motivational items were generated
(Huang and Hsu 2005).
These 27 motivational items were then combined with
measurements from previous studies (e.g., Crompton 1979;
Dann 1977; Fodness 1994; Hsu and Lam 2003; Jang, Yu, and
Pearson 2003; Zhang and Lam 1999), with a total of 38 items
used for pilot studies. The English survey instrument was
translated into Chinese and reviewed by several tourism
researchers with competencies in both languages to ensure
accuracy of translation. The first pilot study surveyed 204
respondents in various cities in China. Revisions of the
instrument were made based on results of the reliability and
factor analyses, with 27 items retained. The revised instru-
ment was further pilot tested. Data of the second pilot study
were collected from 186 travelers at the Beijing Capital
International Airport and white-collar workers in Beijing’s
business districts. Reliability and factor analyses were fur-
ther conducted to refine the instrument, and seven items
were removed. The finalized measurement of motivation
consisted of 20 items, with nine Hong Kong–specific moti-
vations from the focus group discussions.
The questionnaire also included six attitude items, six
expectation items, and other variables pertaining to tourists’
profile and behavior. For motivation items, the 20 state-
ments started with an umbrella question stem: “If you were
to visit Hong Kong in the near future, you would visit it
because you’d like to . . . ” The expectation measurement
was developed based on Lam and Hsu (2004) and focus
group discussions. Measurement of expectation began with
“Visiting Hong Kong will enable you to . . . ,” followed by
six statements. Attitude was measured with six items as well,
adapted from the Lam and Hsu (2004) scale, which had a
common stem: “From all your knowledge about Hong Kong,
you think the visit would be . . . .” All items measuring the
three constructs used the same 7-point Likert-type scale,
where 7 = strongly agree and 1 = strongly disagree.
The EMA Model
The profile of respondents is shown in Table 2. The sample
was evenly distributed between female and male. More than
73% of respondents were between 19 and 29 years old.
Respondents were well educated, with near 70% of them
having a college degree or above, and one-third of them
were white-collar workers. In terms of previous experience
to Hong Kong, only 13.1% had visited the city before. The
Hong Kong Tourism Board (2005) statistics showed that
58% of 2004 visitors from mainland China were 35 years
and younger. The relatively younger profile of respondents
of the current study may partly explain the low percentage of
respondents with past experience of visiting Hong Kong.
However, those individuals represent an important potential
market.
The validity of the expectation–motivation–attitude
(EMA) model was established via a series of statistical
288 Journal of Travel Research 49(3)

Table 3. Constructs of Motivation

Variance Reliability
Factor or Item Loading Eigenvalue Explained (%) Alpha

Factor 1: Knowledge 3.422 18.010 0.814

Know more about Hong Kong as an example of “One Country, 0.751
  Two Systems”
Learn Hong Kong’s unique colonial history 0.718
Increase knowledge about other places 0.701
Experience different cultures 0.693
Interact with Hong Kong people 0.644
Experience the melting culture of East meeting West 0.551
Visit some cultural and historical attractions 0.513
Factor 2: Relaxation 2.720 14.314 0.761
Enjoy happy time with family 0.754
Relax and rest 0.713
Enjoy happy time with friends who travel together 0.698
Have some time for a break from routine life 0.646
Release work pressure 0.619
Factor 3: Novelty 2.140 11.264 0.710
Fulfill curiosity about Hong Kong 0.790
Visit a destination that most people think deserves a visit 0.778
Feel the magnificence of the city’s skyscrapers 0.541
Experience a metropolitan city 0.519
Factor 4: Shopping 2.036 10.713 0.692
Buy world famous brand-name products 0.826
Buy IT and telecommunication products 0.777
Go shopping 0.701
Total 54.301

analyses. Results of the measurement and path models are
reported below.
Measurement Model
Descriptive analysis was carried out to test the normality
of all variables before testing the measurement model and
structural model. Results showed that all variables of the
three constructs were negatively skewed. The skewness sta-
tistics ranged from −1.400 to −0.344, and kurtosis statistics
ranged from −0.421 to 2.480. The square transformation
alleviated the nonnormality of the data, with the skewness
statistics ranging from −0.640 to 0.246 and kurtosis statistics
ranging from −0.049 to −1.063 after the transformation.
However, the data were still significantly nonnormally dis-
tributed, with a normalized multivariate kurtosis estimate of
64.6 (values greater than 5 are considered as nonnormal-
ized). Therefore, the method of Yuan–Bentler (Y-B) rescaled
chi-square and standard errors was adopted to further allevi-
ate the nonnormality of the data.
Exploratory factor analysis of the transformed data was
conducted to extract underlying dimensions of motivation. A
principal components method with varimax rotation was
used. To control the number of factors extracted, a minimum
eigenvalue of one was used. Items exhibiting low factor
loadings (≤.40), high cross-loadings (>.40), or low commu-
nalities (<0.50) were removed one at a time (Hair et al.
1998). This process continued until no more items were to be
deleted. Of the 20 items, one item was removed because of
the low factor loadings. Two rounds of factor analysis was
conducted with a four-factor solution derived (Table 3). The
four factors were labeled as knowledge, relaxation, novelty,
and shopping. To test the reliability of the factors, a Cron-
bach’s alpha reliability test was run and all factors showed
acceptable levels of reliability.
Before conducting confirmatory factor analysis, the need
for listwise deletion of missing values based on the three con-
structs of motivation, expectation, and attitude was assessed.
A total of 176 cases with missing value were detected, and the
percentage of missingness was 11.6%. According to Hair et al.
(1998), data with missing values greater than 10% should be
imputed rather than deleted. Therefore, FIML imputation
method was adopted in structural equation modeling.
A two-step confirmatory factor analysis was conducted
as suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) to first eval-
uate each construct separately, followed by the testing of
the overall measurement model. Two variables describing
expectation were deleted because of a factor loading less
Hsu et al. 289
Table 4. Goodness-of-fit Indices of Measurement Models
Construct c 2
p CFI NFI
Motivation 680.123 .000 0.903 0.886
Attitude 35.110 .000 0.984 0.982
Expectation 7.785 .020 0.992 0.989
Overall measurement 1316.484 .000 0.904 0.881
model
Note: CFI = comparative fit index; NFI = normed fit index.
than .3 (“Visiting Hong Kong will enable you to shop for
value-for-money goods”) and error covariance with other
variables (“Visiting Hong Kong will enable you to have a
good time with family, relatives, or friends”). One variable
describing attitude (“From all your knowledge about Hong
Kong, you think the visit would be rewarding”) was deleted
because of error covariance with another variable. For the
motivation construct, two variables were deleted. First,
because of error covariance with another variable, the item
“If you were to visit Hong Kong in the near future, you
would visit it because you’d like to enjoy happy time with
family” was deleted. Next, the variable “If you were to visit
Hong Kong in the near future, you would visit it because
you’d like to experience a metropolitan city” was deleted
because its factor loading was less than .5. The goodness-of-
fit indices for the measurement of constructs are shown in
Table 4. The construct of motivation had comparative fit
index (CFI) = .903 and Normed fit index (NFI) = .886. The
construct of attitude had CFI = .984 and NFI = .982. The
construct of expectation had CFI = .992 and NFI = .989.
Construct validity was assessed next to validate the mea-
surement scales. According to Campbell and Fiske (1959),
there are two main components of construct validity: conver-
gent and discriminant validity. Cronbach’s alpha is commonly
used to establish the internal consistency construct validity.
Construct reliability values of .7 or higher indicate good
reliability, and between .6 and .7 is acceptable (Hair et al.
1998). The Cronbach’s alpha value of shopping was .692 and
values of the other three factors were all above .7. Therefore,
the convergent validity was established. In addition, the
measurement of motivation identified in this study was com-
pared with that identified in previous studies with Chinese
outbound tourists (see Cai, Li, and Knuston 2007), with all
four factors showing consistency.
Discriminant validity refers to the principle that indica-
tors for different constructs should not be so highly correlated
as to lead one to conclude that they measure the same thing.
This would happen if there is definitional overlap between
constructs. Discriminant validity was tested using the nested
model approach. Namely, the measurement models were run
both unconstrained and constrained by fixing the correlation
between constructs to 1.0. Discriminant validity of the con-
structs could be established if the two models differ
significantly on a chi-square difference test. The analysis
was carried out for one pair of constructs at a time.
However, as discussed previously, model testing in this
study was based on the Y-B scaled method. The typical chi-
square difference test used for nested model comparison
should not be calculated using the Y-B scaled chi-square
because the difference between two Y-B chi-square values
is not distributed as a chi-square. A correction method was
recommended by Satorra and Bentler (2001). The drawback
of this method however is that a positive value for the scal-
ing correction is not assured, and this may result in negative
chi-square values. This situation occurred when testing the
discriminant validity between the constructs of expecta-
tion and knowledge. Fortunately, Satorra and Bentler (2008)
proposed a new method to handle this situation, and this
method was used for testing the discriminant validity
between the construct of expectation and knowledge. A total
of 15 pairwise comparisons were made in this study and all
15 showed significant change in chi-square, which con-
firmed the discriminant validity.
A total of 21 indicators of exogenous variables and 5 indi-
cators of endogenous variables were used in the overall
measurement model, with all constructs allowed to be inter-
correlated freely. This model was evaluated and revised until
a theoretically meaningful as well as statistically acceptable
model was achieved. Indicators having less than .30 of coef-
ficient alpha were suggested to be deleted (Hair et al. 1998).
However, all the coefficients had a significance level lower
than .001, and the correlations were smaller than the prob-
lematic level of .90. The chi-square was 1316.484, with a
degree of freedom of 284, CFI was .904, NFI was .881, and
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was
.049. The results from CFA are shown in Tables 4 and 5. The
factor score for each statement was measured by the stan-
dardized loading.
Path Models
The first three hypotheses were tested in one three-construct
full-path model, which included the latent variables of expec-
tation, attitude, and the four motivation factors of knowledge,
relaxation, novelty, and shopping (as shown in Table 6).
Results of the initial path analysis revealed some unexpected
parameters. Specifically, the standardized coefficient of the
knowledgeàattitude path was negative (standardized b =
−.619) in the three-construct model. The model diagnosis
through correlation analysis indicated the existence of a sup-
pressor effect. The suppressor was in effect “when the path
coefficient and the correlation between latent constructs do
not have the same sign, and the original relationship between
the two has been suppressed” (Falk and Miller 1992, p. 75).
The correlation between knowledge and attitude in the pres-
ent study was a positive .441, while the path’s coefficient
was negative.
290 Journal of Travel Research 49(3)

Table 5. Results of the Overall Measurement Model (N = 1,514)

Standardized Squared
Factor Robust Multiple Composite
Factor/Item Loading t value Correlation Reliability

Factor 1: Knowledge .820

Experience different cultures .693 20.939 .480
Know more about Hong Kong as an example of “one county, .665 23.781 .443
   two systems”
Increase your knowledge about other places .654 21.394 .427
Learn Hong Kong’s unique colonial history .621 NA .385
Experience the melting culture of East meeting West .599 20.025 .359
Interact with Hong Kong people .597 20.202 .357
Visit some cultural and historical attractions .564 20.822 .319
Factor 2: Relaxation .701
Release your work pressure .694 18.547 .482
Have some time for a break from routine work .640 17.748 .410
Relax and rest .561 NA .315
Enjoy happy time with friends who travel together with you .530 15.793 .281
Factor 3: Novelty .731
Visit a destination that most people think deserves a visit .760 22.829 .577
Fulfill curiosity about Hong Kong .668 NA .446
Feel the magnificence of the city’s skyscrapers .638 19.971 .408
Factor 4: Shopping .699
Buy world famous brand-name products .755 NA .570
Go shopping .622 16.502 .387
Buy IT and telecommunication products .600 17.536 .360
Expectation .702
Learn about its history and culture .720 20.734 .518
Experience something different .625 18.472 .391
See some beautiful scenery .603 NA .363
Realize that the living standard in your place of residence is .479 15.442 .230
   not as good
Attitude .875
Satisfying .769 NA .592
Pleasant .755 28.328 .570
Enjoyable .715 26.628 .512
Worthwhile .708 27.815 .501
Fascinating .673 26.296 .453

Table 6. Goodness-of-Fit Indices of Path Models
Path Model c 2
p CFI RMSEA
Modified three-construct 658.156 .000 .927 .048
Two-construct Expectation 429.503 .000 .911 .056
àMotivation
Two-construct Motivation 633.707 .000 .902 .064
àAttitude
Two-construct Expectation 121.658 .000 .970 .049
àAttitude
Note: CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of
approximation.
Following the suggestions in previous studies (Harrell,
Hutt, and Anderson 1980; Vazquez-Carrasco and Foxall
2006; Maassen and Bakker 2001), the construct of knowl-
edge was deleted. The goodness-of-fit (GFI) indices of the
modified full model included a chi-square of 658.156 with a
p value of .000, CFI of .927, and RMSEA of .048.
All the coefficients in the modified model were signi­
ficant at .001 except for the noveltyàattitude path, which
was significant at .05. The directional relationships bet­
ween expectation and motivation, motivation and attitude,
and expectation and attitude were statistically established
(as shown in Tables 6 and 7 and Figure 2). The third
hypothesis (expectation of visiting an outbound destina-
tion has a direct effect on their attitude toward visiting the
destination) was therefore fully supported. The first
(expectation of visiting an outbound destination has a
direct effect on their motivation to visit the destination)
and the second hypotheses (motivation has a direct effect
on their attitude toward visiting the destination) were par-
tially supported to the extent the effect of expectation on
tourists’ motivation as well as the effect of motivation on
Hsu et al. 291
Table 7. Modified Path Model and Test of Mediating Effect
Path Standardized b t
Modified Three-Construct Path Relaxation
  Model
Expectation à Relaxation .592 13.742***
Expectation à Novelty .662 15.362***
Expectation à Shopping .250 6.735***
Relaxation à Attitude (3, m)a .192 4.354***
Novelty à Attitude (3, m) .049 0.970*
Shopping à Attitude (3, m) .295 8.766***
Expectation à Attitude (3, 4) .434 6.049***
Two-Construct Path Models
Expectation à Relaxation (1) .579 13.383***
Expectation à Novelty (1) .680 15.199***
Expectation à Shopping (1) .214 6.742***
Expectation à Attitude (2, 4) .600 15.871***
a. Numbers in parentheses indicate the following: 1 = first condition;
2 = second condition, 3 = third condition, 4 = fourth condition;
m = mediating effect.
*p < .01. ***p < .001.
their attitude were limited to their pursuit for relaxation,
novelty, and shopping.
The standardized coefficients and t values of the modified
model’s paths are summarized in Table 7 for the test of the
fourth hypothesis that motivation has a mediating effect on
the relationship between expectation and attitude. There are
generally three major frameworks of testing the mediating
effect: the causal steps approach, differences in coefficients,
and product of coefficients (Wood et al. 2008). Baron and
Kenny’s (1986) causal steps approach was used in this study
as it has been adopted the most by studies in management
(Wood et al. 2008) as well as in hospitality and tourism
(e.g., Back 2005; He and Song 2009). Four conditions were
recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986): (1) the indepen-
dent variable Expectation must be shown to affect the
mediator Motivation in the absence of the dependent vari-
able Attitude; (2) the independent variable Expectation must
be shown to affect the dependent variable Attitude in the
absence of the mediator Motivation; (3) the mediator Moti-
vation must affect the dependent variable Attitude in the
presence of the independent variable Expectation; and the
independent variable Expectation must affect the dependent
variable Attitude in the presence of the mediator Motivation;
and (4) once the above conditions all hold in the predicted
direction, the effect of the independent variable Expectation
on the dependent variable Attitude must be less in the third
condition than in the second condition. Baron and Kenny
also recommended that the Sobel test be used to test the sig-
nificance of the change in the coefficient in step 4 for a more
comprehensive and reliable test (Preacher and Hayes 2004;
Wood et al. 2008).
In this study, the first three conditions were met with
significant path coefficients between expectation and
Motivation
Knowledge
0.1
92
0.5 62
Novelty
0.04
92
0.6 9
0.250
Shopping
0.295
Expectation Attitude
0.434
Figure 2. Modified path model
motivation, expectation and attitude, as well as motivation
and attitude (Table 7). For the fourth condition, Sobel test
indicated that changes in the coefficient because of the
introduction of the mediator were significant for relaxation
(t = 4.151, p < .001) and shopping (t = 5.341, p < .001). The
fourth hypothesis (motivation has a mediating effect on the
relationship between expectation and attitude) was therefore
partly supported in that motivation has a partial mediating
effect, via two of the four motivation factors, on the relation-
ship between expectation and attitude.
Discussion
The findings above can be examined in the context of con-
sumer decision-making process typified by the expectancy-
value theory. Motivation represents one’s psychological
needs to pursue a goal state. Expectation, defined as a belief
that a particular action will lead to some defined outcome,
must be present as a condition for the pursuit to occur. An
important property of expectation is that one can perceive
the likely outcome of action without actually executing an
action. In between the belief and action is one’s predisposi-
tion, or attitude toward the action. The belief will not lead to
an action but will cause the predisposition that involves sub-
jective evaluation of the action’s outcome in line with the
expectation or belief.
The respondents expected that visiting Hong Kong would
enable them to have certain experiences, such as being
exposed to something different, learning about history and
culture, beautiful sceneries, and realization of differences in
living standards. The present study found that such expec­
tation would lead, in varying degrees, to their pursuit for
relaxation, novelty, and shopping. A significant positive and
causal relationship existed between the respondents’ expec-
tation and motivation. Yet the strength of the relationship
varied, as indicated by the different coefficients associated
with the three motivation factors. The linkage between
expectation and motivation for novelty was found to be the
strongest, followed by relaxation and shopping.
292 Journal of Travel Research 49(3)
The study also found that respondents’ expectation caused
them to be predisposed to evaluate the outcome of their
Hong Kong visit as enjoyable, pleasant, worthwhile, satisfy-
ing, and fascinating. A positive casual relationship between
their expectation and attitude was significantly established in
this study. One’s attitude is learned. Travelers’ expectation
must have been formed on the basis of their knowledge about
Hong Kong, the sources of which could be varied. Suppose
their knowledge came primarily from being exposed to
media advertisements, the advertisements must have been
effective in forming the expectation. This expectation caused
these individuals to be predisposed to favorably considering
visiting Hong Kong and at the same time caused them to
pursue novelty, relaxation, and shopping. Except for the pur-
suit of knowledge, their motivation in turn affected their
attitude both directly and indirectly through its partial medi-
ating effects on the expectation and attitude linkage. In the
absence of motivation, the impact of expectation on attitude
was determined in the two-construct path model. The impact
was positive and statistically significant. When motiva-
tion was introduced into the three-construct model, the
relationship between expectation and attitude was strength-
ened with the partial mediating effects of the two motivation
factors of relaxation and shopping.
The partial mediating effect of motivation on the relation-
ship between expectation and attitude was the most profound
finding of the present study. The research of mediating effect
on the causal relation between expectation and attitude in
tourists’ decision making remains void in tourism literature,
although it has been around for more than two decades else-
where in consumer research (e.g., Gardner 1985; Lutz,
MacKenzie, and Belch 1983; MacKenzie and Spreng 1992).
These studies typically involved data collected in experi-
mental settings. The 1992 study by MacKenzie and Spreng
examined the relationship between brand cognitions (defined
as subjects’ cognitive responses to a print advertisement of a
wristwatch brand) and brand attitude (defined as their over-
all evaluation of the brand). They found that the subjects’
motivation to evaluate the brand increased the impact of
brand cognitions on brand attitude by increasing the strength
of their relationship. This held true for both positive and
negative brand cognitions. When positive brand cognitions
caused a positive brand attitude, increase of motivation
resulted in the increase of the total effect. Thus, the strength
of the positive relationship was enhanced. When negative
brand cognitions caused a negative brand attitude, increase of
motivation resulted in the increase of the absolute value of
the total effect. As a result, the strength of the negative rela-
tionship was enhanced.
The influence of motivation on the linkage strength
between brand cognitions and brand attitude was called
moderating effect by MacKenzie and Spreng (1992). The
use of motivation as a moderator instead of mediator in
their study might be due to the experimental nature of the
motivation variable. The term mediating effect was more
appropriate for the findings of the present study. Baron and
Kenny (1986) provided an excellent distinction between
moderator and mediator variables in social psychological
research. A variable functions as a mediator to the extent that
it accounts for the relation between independent and depen-
dent variables. Mediators explain how external stimuli take
on internal psychological significance (Baron and Kenny
1986, p. 176), which applies to the present study’s finding
that the strength of the relation between tourists’ expectation
and attitude was mediated by their motivation, specifically
their psychological needs in pursuit for relaxation and
shopping.
In understanding the impact of persuasive communica-
tion, researchers have emphasized the importance of depth,
rather than the amount, of consumer information processing
(e.g., Greenwald and Leavitt 1984; Mick 1987). When moti-
vation exhibits mediating effects on the strength of the rela-
tion between tourists’ expectation and attitude, the focus
should be on the nature rather than the amount of their
expectation. As such, the quality of knowledge underpinning
the expectation becomes a dominant concern. Suppose again
that tourists’ knowledge was primarily formed by being
exposed to media advertisements, a favorable attitude was
not so much achieved by the amount of knowledge as by the
depth and quality of such knowledge, and through extension,
the depth and quality of expectation. Findings of the study
suggested that marketing programs developed and executed
for the mainland Chinese tourists must be consistent in set-
ting up expectations that positively affect their inclination to
evaluate a visit to Hong Kong as enjoyable, pleasant, worth-
while, satisfying, and fascinating and at the same time
address their psychological needs to pursue relaxation, nov-
elty, and shopping, as these pursuits would enhance their
attitude formed through their expectations.
Conclusion
Building on the TPB and expectancy-value theory, this
study empirically identified the interrelations between and
among expectation, motivation, and attitude using data col-
lected with potential Chinese outbound tourists to Hong
Kong. Those three constructs are critical in travel decision-
making processes; however, the interrelation among them
was ignored by hospitality and tourism scholars as identified
by literature review. The applicability of both theories was
also evidenced by empirical findings. Specifically, a partial
mediating effect of motivation on the relation between
expectation and attitude was detected that furthered the
understanding of the TPB.
This study has both theoretical and practical contribu-
tions. Theoretically, this research is one of the first attempts
to develop and empirically test a conceptual model on travel
motivation in a dynamic course of behavior using data
Hsu et al. 293
collected from potential travelers. Previous studies on travel
motivation have been focused on the examination of specific
motivations that urge people to take certain types of vacation
(e.g., Qu and Ping 1999) or on the use of motivation as a
means of market segmentation (e.g., Chang, Wall, and Chu
2006; Formica and Uysal 1998; Lieux, Weaver, and
McCleary 1994). Only a few studies investigated the rela-
tionship between motivation and other behavioral constructs
(e.g., Yoon and Uysal 2005). The study of motivation is the
starting point for any effort to understand consumer behav-
ior, which is a dynamic and continuous process. Investigating
the relationships between motivation and other critical
behavioral constructs in a systematic way will facilitate the
understanding of travel motivation. From this point of view,
this study contributes to extant literature by offering a com-
prehensive motivational model in the course of consumer
behavior that deliberately scrutinized and delineated the
relationships between motivation and other behavioral
constructs.
The second contribution rests in the special context in
which this study was carried out. Although the role of
national and cultural characteristics in shaping tourist
behavior and motivation have been discussed in the litera-
ture (Fleischer and Pizam 2002; Graburn 1995; Maoz 2007;
Richardson and Crompton 1988; Ritter 1987), most of the
prominent models on travel behavior were developed in the
Western society. The interest in cross-cultural research has
recently intensified because of the increasingly global inter-
connectedness of social, political, and economic lives; the
increased recognition of cultural and ethnic diversity within
and among societies; and the broad philosophical and meth-
odological trends such as postmodernism and phenomenology
in social sciences (Kim 1998). In this regard, this study shed
light on the Chinese outbound market, a new yet promising
market to the whole world.
China’s outbound market has been examined since the
pioneering groups of Chinese tourists ventured outside the
mainland in the early 1990s (Cai and Combrink 2000; Cai,
Boger, and O’Leary 1999). The extant literature describes
their demographics and activities (e.g., Pan and Laws 2001;
Qu and Lam 1997; Yu and Weiler 2001). Some analyzed
their profile beyond descriptive nature (e.g., Lam and Hsu
2004; Ryan and Mo 2001; Zhang and Lam 1999). To the
extent these publications were informative for the early
years of the Chinese outbound market, the current relevance
of the findings is questionable; and more importantly how
much the activities they participated in truly reflected what
they desired to do was in doubt, as their itineraries were pre-
fixed and dictated by tour operators and guides. While tour
groups remain the primary form of outbound travel by
Chinese tourists, their trip characteristics have become more
diverse and sophisticated. More significantly, Chinese tour-
ists are growing more confident in making travel decisions
ranging from destination choice to accommodation selec-
tion. There is a greater component of leisure pursuits than
sightseeing. The proportion of independent and repeat
travelers is rising as well, which is particularly evident for
Hong Kong and Macao.
As China’s outbound market continues to grow in size
and in sophistication, these developments demand a deeper
level of investigation into their decision-making process in
choosing a destination. Practically, as Hong Kong gradu-
ally loses its advantage to a growing number of competing
destinations, the empirical findings of the study provided
convincing evidence that in their decision-making process,
mainland Chinese tourists do hold specific expectation,
motivation, and attitude toward visiting Hong Kong as a
travel destination. Translating the findings of these decision-
making factors and their interrelations into marketing
programs, Hong Kong should expect more effective results.
The practical contribution to Hong Kong was at the same
time the limitation of this present study. In addition, the
study was conducted with a relatively young sample, which
comprised 73% respondents aged between 19 and 29. The
sampling issue may also challenge the validity of the study
results. Another limitation of the current study is that it was
conducted in the context of a destination; therefore its appli-
cability to tourism attractions or resorts may be challenged.
Similar research efforts are warranted to verify the validity
of the conceptual model for other samples, destinations, and/
or attractions or resorts.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect
to the authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The work described in this article was supported by a grant from
the Hong Kong Polytechnic University (Project No. GY-E65).
References
Ajzen, I. (2001). “Nature and Operation of Attitudes.” Annual
Review of Psychology, 52 (1): 27-58.
Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein (2000). “Attitudes and the Attitude-
Behavior Relation: Reasoned and Automatic Processes.” In
European Review of Social Psychology, edited by W. Stroebe
and M. Hewstonr. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Anderson, J., and D. Gerbing (1988). “Structural Equation Mod-
eling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step
Approach.” Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3): 411-23.
Back, K. (2005). “The Effects of Image Congruence on Custom-
ers’ Brand Loyalty in the Upper Middle-Class Hotel Indus-
try.” Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 29 (4):
448-67.
Bandura, A. (1977). “Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of
Behavioral Change.” Psychological Review, 84 (2): 191-215.
Baron, R. M., and D. A. Kenny (1986). “The Moderator-Mediator
Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Concep-
tual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.” Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 51 (6): 1173-82.
294 Journal of Travel Research 49(3)
Beh, A., and B. Bruyere (2007). “Segmentation by Visitor Moti-
vation in Three Kenyan National Reserves.” Tourism Manage-
ment, 28 (6): 1464-71.
Bolton, R. N., and J. H. Drew (1991). “A Longitudinal Analysis of
the Impact of Service Changes on Customer Attitudes.” Journal
of Marketing, 55 (January): 1-9.
Cai, L., C. Boger, and J. T. O’Leary (1999). “The Chinese Travelers to
Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand—A Unique Chinese Outbound
Market.” Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 3 (2): 2-13.
Cai, L., and T. E. Combrink (2000). “Japanese Female Travelers:
A Unique Outbound Market.” Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism
Research, 5 (1): 16-24.
Cai, L., M. Li, and B. Knuston (2007). “Research on China Out-
bound Market: A Meta-Review.” Journal of Hospitality and Lei-
sure Marketing, 16 (1/2): 5-20.
Campbell, D., and D. Fiske (1959). “Convergent and Discriminant
Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix.” Psychologi-
cal Bulletin, 56 (2): 81-105.
Campbell, J., M. Dunnette, E. Lawler, and K. Weick (1970). Man-
agerial Behavior, Performance, and Effectiveness. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Chang, J., G. Wall, and S. Chu (2006). “Novelty Seeking at Aborig-
inal Attractions.” Annals of Tourism Research, 33 (3): 729-47.
Clift, S., and S. Forrest (1999). “Gay Men and Tourism: Destinations
and Holiday Motivations.” Tourism Management, 20 (6): 615-25.
Crompton, J. (1979). “Motivation for Pleasure Vacation.” Annals of
Tourism Research, 6 (4): 408-24.
Dann, G. (1977). “Anomie, Ego-Enhancement and Tourism.”
Annals of Tourism Research, 4 (4): 184-94.
Dann, G. (1981). “Tourist Motivation: An Appraisal.” Annals of
Tourism Research, 8 (2): 187-219.
Dunn Ross, E., and S. Iso-Ahola (1991). “Sightseeing Tourists’
Motivation and Satisfaction.” Annals of Tourism Research, 18
(2): 226-37.
Falk, R. F., and N. B. Miller (1992). A Primer for Soft Modeling.
Akron, Ohio: The University of Akron.
Feather, N. T., Ed. (1982) Expectations and Actions: Expectancy-
Value Models in Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Feather, N. T. (1990). “Bridging the Gap between Values and
Actions: Recent Applications of the Expectancy-Value Model.”
In Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundation of
Social Behavior, edited by E. T. Higgins and R. M. Sorrentino.
New York: Guilford, pp. 151-92.
Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and
Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Boston:
Addison-Wesley.
Fleischer, A., and A. Pizam (2002). “Tourism Constraints among
Israeli Seniors.” Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (1): 106-23.
Fodness, D. (1994). “Measuring Tourist Motivation.” Annals of
Tourism Research, 21 (3): 555-81.
Formica, S., and M. Uysal (1998). “Market Segmentation of an
International Cultural-Historical Event in Italy.” Journal of
Travel Research, 36 (Spring): 16-24.
French, C., S. Craig-Smith, and A. Collier (1995). Principles of
Tourism. Melbourne, Australia: Longman.
Gardner, M. P. (1985). “Does Attitude toward the Ad Affect Brand
Attitude under a Brand Evaluation Set.” Journal of Marketing
Research, 22 (May): 192-98.
Gnoth, J. (1997). “Tourism Motivation and Expectation Forma-
tion.” Annals of Tourism Research, 24 (2): 283-304.
Goossens, C. (2000). “Tourism Information and Pleasure Motiva-
tion.” Annals of Tourism Research, 27 (2): 301-21.
Graburn, N. (1995). “The Past and the Present in Japan. Nostalgia
and Neo-Traditionalism in Contemporary Japanese Domestic
Tourism.” In Change in Tourism, People, Places, Processes,
edited by R. Butler and D. Pearce. London: Routledge.
Greenwald, A. G., and C. Leavitt (1984). “Audience Involvement
in Advertising: Four Levels.” Journal of Consumer Research,
11 (June): 581-92.
Hair, J. F., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, and W. C. Black (1998).
Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Harrell, G. D., M. D. Hutt, and J. C. Anderson (1980). “Path Analy-
sis of Buyer Behavior under Condition of Crowding.” Journal
of Marketing Research, 17 (1): 45-51.
He, Y., and H. Song (2009). “A Mediation Model of Tourists’
Repurchase Intentions for Packaged Tour Services.” Journal of
Travel Research, 47 (3): 317-31.
Heckhausen, H. (1989). Motivation and Action, translated by P. K.
Leppmann, 2nd edition. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Higgins, E. T. (1996). “Knowledge Activation: Accessibility, Appli-
cability, and Salience.” In Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic
Principles, edited by E. T. Higgins and A. W. Kruglanski.
New York: Guilford, pp. 133-68.
Holbrook, M. B., and K. P. Corfman (1985). “Quality and Value in
the Consumption Experience: Phaedrus Rides Again.” In Per-
ceived Quality, edited by J. Jacoby and J. M. Olson. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books, pp. 31-57.
Hollander, P. E. (1971). Principles and Methods of Social Psychol-
ogy. New York: Oxford University.
Hong Kong Tourism Board (2005). “A Statistical Review of
Hong Kong Tourism 2004.” http://partnernet.hktourismboard.
com (accessed August, 24, 2008).
Hsu, C., L. Cai, and K. Wong (2007). “A Model of Senior Tourism
Motivation—Anecdotes from Beijing and Shanghai.” Tourism
Management, 28 (5): 1262-73.
Hsu, C., and T. Lam (2003). “Mainland Chinese Travelers’ Motiva-
tions and Barriers of Visiting Hong Kong.” Journal of Academy
of Business and Economics, 2 (1): 60-67.
Huang, S., and C. Hsu (2005). “Mainland Chinese Residents’ Per-
ceptions and Motivations of Visiting Hong Kong: Evidence
from Focus Group Interviews.” Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism
Research, 10 (2): 191-205.
Jang, S., and C. Wu (2006). “Senior’s Travel Motivation and the
Influential Factors: An Examination of Taiwanese Seniors.”
Tourism Management, 27 (2): 306-16.
Jang, S., L. Yu, and T. Pearson (2003). “Chinese Travelers to
the United States: A Comparison of Business Travel and Vis-
iting Friends and Relatives.” Tourism Geographies, 5 (1):
87-108.
Hsu et al. 295
Katz, D. (1960). “The Functional Approach to the Study of Atti-
tudes.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 24 (2): 163-204.
Kim, C. (1998). “Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Motivation.”
Annals of Tourism Research, 25 (4): 202-05.
Kim, S., and B. Prideaux (2005). “Marketing Implications Aris-
ing from a Comparative Study of International Pleasure Tourist
Motivations and Other Travel-Related Characteristics of Visi-
tors to Korea.” Tourism Management, 26 (3): 347-57.
Kozak, M. (2002). “Comparative Analysis of Tourist Motivations
by Nationality and Destinations.” Tourism Management, 23 (3):
221-32.
Lam, T., and C. H. C. Hsu (2004). “Theory of Planned Behavior:
Potential Travelers from China.” Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Research, 28 (4): 463-82.
Lam, T., and C. H. C. Hsu (2006). “Predicting Behavioral Intention
of Choosing a Travel Destination.” Tourism Management, 27
(2): 589-99.
Lau, A., and B. McKercher (2004). “Exploration versus Acquisi-
tion: A Comparison of First-Time and Repeat Visitors.” Journal
of Travel Research, 42 (February): 279-85.
Lieux, E., P. Weaver, and K. McCleary (1994). “Lodging Pref-
erences of the Senior Tourism Market.” Annals of Tourism
Research, 21 (4): 712-28.
Lindgren, H. C. (1969). An Introduction to Social Psychology.
New York: John Wiley.
Luo, Y., and J. Deng (2008). “The New Environmental Paradigm and
Nature-Based Tourism Motivation.” Journal of Travel Research,
46 (May): 392-402.
Lutz, R. J., S. B. MacKenzie, and G. E. Belch (1983). “Attitude
toward the Ad as a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness:
Determinants and Consequences.” In Advances in Consumer
Research, edited by R. Bagozzi and A. Tybout. Ann Arbor, MI:
Association for Consumer Research, pp. 532-39.
Maassen, G. H., and A. B. Bakker (2001). “Suppressor Variables
in Path Models: Definition and Interpretations.” Sociological
Methods & Research, 30 (2): 241-70.
MacKenzie, S. B., and R. A. Spreng (1992). “How Does Motiva-
tion Moderate the Impact of Central and Peripheral Processing
on Brand Attitudes and Intentions.” The Journal of Consumer
Research, 18 (4): 519-29.
Mansfeld, Y. (1992). “From Motivation to Actual Behavior.”
Annals of Tourism Research, 19 (4): 399-419.
Maoz, D. (2007). “Backpackers’ Motivations: The Role of Culture
and Nationality.” Annals of Tourism Research, 34 (1): 122-40.
Mayes, B. T. (1978). “Some Boundary Considerations in the Appli-
cation of Motivation Models.” The Academy of Management
Review, 3 (1): 51-58.
Mick, D. G. (1987). “Levels of Comprehension in Consumers’ Pro-
cessing of Print Advertising Language.” Department of Market-
ing, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Mill, R., and A. Morrison (2002). The Tourism System, 4th edition.
Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Nicolau, J., and F. Mas (2006). “The Influence of Distance and
Prices on the Choice of Tourist Destinations: The Moderating
Role of Motivations.” Tourism Management, 27 (4): 982-96.
Oliver, R. L. (1981). “Measurement and Evaluation of Satisfaction
Processes in Retail Settings.” Journal of Retailing, 57 (Fall):
25-48.
Olshavsky, R. W. (1985). “Perceived Quality in Consumer Decision
Making: An Integrated Theoretical Perspective.” In Perceived
Quality, edited by J. Jacoby and J. M. Olson. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Olson, J. M., N. J. Roese, and M. P. Zanna (1996). “Expectancies.”
In Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, edited by
E. T. Higgins and A. W. Kruglanski. New York: Guilford, pp.
211-38.
Pan, G., and E. Laws (2001). “Tourism Marketing Opportunities
for Australia in China.” Journal of Vacation Marketing, 8 (1):
39-48.
Park, D., and Y. Yoon (2009). “Segmentation by Motivation in
Rural Tourism: A Korean Case Study.” Tourism Management,
30 (1): 99-108.
Parrinello, G. (1993). “Motivation and Anticipation in Post-Industrial
Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research, 20 (2): 233-49.
Paul, E. (1992). “The Travel Motivations of Canadian Ecotourists.”
Journal of Travel Research, 31 (Fall): 3-7.
Pearce, P. (1988). The Ulysses Factor: Evaluation Visitors in Tour-
ist Settings. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Pearce, P., and M. Caltabiano (1983). “Inferring Travel Motivation
from Travelers’ Experiences.” Journal of Travel Research, 22
(2): 16-20.
Pearce, P., and U. Lee (2005). “Developing the Travel Career
Approach to Tourist Motivation.” Journal of Travel Research,
43 (3): 226-37.
Plog, S. (1974). “Why Destination Areas Rise and Fall in Popular-
ity.” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Quarterly, 14 (4): 55-58.
Poria, Y., A. Reichel, and A. Biran (2006). “Heritage Site Man-
agement: Motivation and Expectation.” Annals of Tourism
Research, 33 (1): 162-78.
Preacher, K. J., and A. Hayes (2004). “SPSS and SAS Procedures
for Estimating Indirect Effects in Simple Mediation Models.”
Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36
(4): 717-31.
Qu, H., and S. Lam (1997). “A Travel Demand Model for Mainland
Chinese Tourists to Hong Kong.” Tourism Management, 18 (8):
593-97.
Qu, H., and E. Ping (1999). “A Service Performance Model of
Hong Kong Cruise Travelers’ Motivation Factors and Satisfac-
tion.” Tourism Management, 20 (2): 237-44.
Ragheb, M., and R. L. Tate (1993). “A Behavioral Model of Leisure
Participation, Based on Leisure Attitude, Motivation and Satis-
faction.” Leisure Studies, 12 (1): 61-70.
Richardson, S., and J. Crompton (1988). “Vacation Patterns of
French and English Canadians.” Annals of Tourism Research,
15 (3): 430-35.
Ritter, W. (1987). “Styles of Tourism in Modern World.” Tourism
Recreation Research, 12 (1): 3-8.
Rittichainuwat, B. (2008). “Responding to Disaster: Thai and
Scandinavian Tourists’ Motivation to Visit Phuket, Thailand.”
Journal of Travel Research, 46 (May): 422-32.
296 Journal of Travel Research 49(3)
Ryan, C., and I. Glendon (1998). “Application of Leisure Motiva-
tion Scale to Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research, 25 (1):
169-84.
Ryan, C., and X. Mo (2001). “Chinese Visitors to New Zealand—
Demographics and Perceptions.” Journal of Vacation Market-
ing, 8 (1): 13-27.
Satorra, A., and P. Bentler (2001). “A Scaled Difference Chi-Square
Test Statistic for Moment Structure Analysis.” Psychometrika,
66 (4): 507-14.
Satorra, A., and P. Bentler (2008). "Ensuring Positiveness of the
Scaled Difference Chi-Square Test Statistic." http://preprints.
stat.ucla.edu/539/Satorra-Bentler%20Manuscript.pdf (accessed
August 24, 2008).
Sirakaya, E., M. Uysal, and C. Yoshioka (2003). “Segmenting the
Japanese Tour Market to Turkey.” Journal of Travel Research,
41 (February): 293-304.
Smith, S. (1995). Tourism Analysis: A Handbook. Harlow, Essex,
UK: Longman.
Snerpenger, D., J. King, E. Marshall, and M. Uysal (2006). “Mod-
eling Iso-Ahola’s Motivation Theory in the Tourism Context.”
Journal of Travel Research, 45 (November): 140-49.
Spreng, R. A., S. B. MacKenzie, and R. W. Olshavsky (1996). “A
Reexamination of the Determinants of Consumer Satisfaction.”
Journal of Marketing, 60 (3): 15-32.
Swanson, K., and P. Horridge (2006). “Travel Motivations as Souve-
nir Purchase Indicators.” Tourism Management, 27 (4): 671-83.
Vazquez-Carrasco, R., and G. R. Foxall (2006). “Influence of Per-
sonality Traits on Satisfaction, Perception of Relational Ben-
efits, and Loyalty in a Personal Service Context.” Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 13 (3): 205-19.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley.
Waller, J., and S. Lea (1998). “Seeking the Real Spain? Authentic-
ity in Motivation.” Annals of Tourism Research, 25 (4): 110-29.
Wood, R. E., J. S. Goodman, N. Beckmann, and A. Cook (2008).
“Mediation Testing in Management Research.” Organizational
Research Methods, 11 (2): 270-95.
World Tourism Organization (WTO) (1999). International Tour-
ism: A Global Perspective. Madrid:WTO.
Yoon, Y., and M. Uysal (2005). “An Examination of the Effects
of Motivation and Satisfaction on Destination Loyalty: A Struc-
tural Model.” Tourism Management, 26 (1): 45-56.
Yu, X., and B. Weiler (2001). “Mainland Chinese Pleasure Travel-
ers to Australia: A Leisure Behavior Analysis.” Tourism Culture
& Communication, 3 (2): 81-91.
Zhang, H., and T. Lam (1999). “An Analysis of Mainland Chinese
Visitors’ Motivation to Visit Hong Kong.” Tourism Manage-
ment, 20 (5): 587-94.
Bios
Cathy H. C. Hsu is a professor and associate director of the School
of Hotel and Tourism Management, The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University, Hung Hum, Kowloon, Hong Kong, P. R. China.
Liping A. Cai is a professor and the director of the Purdue Tourism
& Hospitality Research Center, Purdue University, West Lafayette,
Indiana. He is also a professor of external appointment in Tourism
and Hotel Management, South China University of Technology,
Guangzhou, P. R. China.
Mimi Li is an assistant professor of the School of Hotel and Tour-
ism Management, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung
Hum, Kowloon, Hong Kong, P. R. China.